Timeline for Tensor product notation
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 1, 2012 at 8:50 | comment | added | Fabian | @Robert: there are different ways to contract tensors (i.e., make inner products). The second choice is written as $F_{\mu\nu} F^{\nu\mu}$. | |
| Dec 1, 2012 at 8:45 | comment | added | Robert | If the matrices are [ 1 -1; 1 1] and [1 -1; 1 1] then your equation gives A00B00+A01B01+A10B10+A11B11 = 4. The equation A00B00 + A01B10 + A10B01 + A11B11 = 1 -1 -1 +1 =0. The second equation is what's given in people.rit.edu/pnveme/EMEM851n/constitutive/tensor_rect11.gif | |
| Dec 1, 2012 at 8:39 | comment | added | Robert | I believe you, but on this picture people.rit.edu/pnveme/EMEM851n/constitutive/tensor_rect11.gif the formula flips the row and column on the second tensor. Do you know where that derivation comes from? | |
| Dec 1, 2012 at 8:25 | comment | added | Fabian | I don't see a difference, if I compare (1.15) with `Double Dot Product'. In any case, it should have the form in my answer. | |
| Dec 1, 2012 at 8:09 | comment | added | Robert | I just realized that two sources I was looking at have different definitions of the double inner product. For example, foamcfd.org/Nabla/guides/ProgrammersGuidese3.html and people.rit.edu/pnveme/EMEM851n/constitutive/tensors_rect.html Which one is it supposed to be? | |
| Dec 1, 2012 at 7:42 | history | answered | Fabian | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
